The advertising industry has fallen all over itself to propose ways for …

A number of privacy groups have spoken out against the adoption of a proposed opt-out plan for behavioral advertising in the US and Europe. The groups are referring to the Advertising Option Icon introduced by the Interactive Advertising Bureau almost one year ago, which purports to make it easy for users to opt out of ad tracking on participating websites with the help of an easily recognizable icon. The system was proposed by the advertising industry as a way to avoid stricter legislation on how they can use information obtained from behavioral tracking, but the privacy groups call it a "flimsy self-regulatory system" that will end up "insufficient and ineffective" at protecting consumer privacy on the Internet.

The Advertising Option Icon is based on an industry report from July 2009 that focuses on education, transparency, and consumer control when it comes to targeted ads. The participating trade groups represent some 5,000 other companies when it comes to advertising on the Web, giving the proposal a higher profile than most when it comes to voluntary opt-out measures. The icon itself is meant to let users know which sites are participating in behavioral tracking and to "enhance the efforts of the growing number of companies that are already using similar mechanisms to deliver enhanced notice to millions of consumers."

When users click on the icon, they are able to read a "clear" disclosure statement about the company's data collection practices. They also have the ability to opt out of being behaviorally tracked by that company, though opting out doesn't necessarily mean they won't see ads anymore. The focus is on targeted ads based on your Internet usage—if advertisers can't target you, they'll just serve up more generalized versions instead. And, of course, the system is voluntary, meaning that there could be thousands of sites that continue track you across the Internet without showing the icon.

The collective organization that is now speaking out against the icon is called the TransAtlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD), which is made up of groups like the Electronic Privacy Information Center, Public Citizen, and the Center for Digital Democracy, as well as others on both sides of the Atlantic. The TACD wrote an open letter to top officials in both governments on Thursday, asking them "to reject the current [online behavioral advertising] self-regulatory regime as inadequate, and work with industry and consumer and privacy groups to ensure that significant revisions are made to protect consumer privacy."

The complaints include the effectiveness of an icon-based system, which TACD says is an insufficient means of tipping users to the "wide range of data collection that they routinely face." The group also cites research showing that very few users ever click on icons of this nature, and even fewer manage to opt out. Not that it matters if they did, as TACD says sensitive data like the user's health information or finances can still be collected under the proposal, not to mention that the opt-out tool is based on browser cookies, making them (at best) temporary and subject to user error.

The TACD feels so strongly about the kinks in the voluntary system that it argues the industry is actually setting itself up to collect more data from users.

"The Digital Advertising Alliance in the US and IAB Europe/EASA, we believe, have created systems principally designed to enable the expansion of OBA- related data practices," TACD wrote in its letter. "[C]onsumer and privacy NGOs are not opposed to digital marketing. Our concern is the same as yours; to ensure that consumers can effectively protect their privacy in today’s digital media environment."

The groups are asking the US and EU governments to perform investigations into the real-time tracking and sales of personal information online, commit to developing a global common standard for protecting privacy, make sure there's proper enforcement and implementation of the rules, and adopt measures that go beyond the cookie-based system pushed by advertisers. The goal is to force both governments to wake up and take further action than what the advertising industry has proposed, largely because the groups believe that the industry simply cannot be trusted to look out for consumers.

"With the White House soon to release a new privacy 'white paper' that likely will rely on this flimsy self-regulatory system as a way to protect consumer privacy, today's unique joint action by US and EU consumer and privacy groups sends a powerful message that such a plan will be insufficient and ineffective," Center for Digital Democracy executive director Jeff Chester wrote in an e-mail to Ars.

Do not want! Just having the buttons on sites lets them know what you are visiting. Many times the sites you don't want them to know about are the ones they really want to track and they do like it or not.

The best solution would be to reach an agreement with major browser makers to delete all local storage on ending a session and to minimize the amount of data that their products send to make fingerprinting more difficult in their default configuration. This would make tracking technically difficult instead of just trusting entities to not do it.

The best solution would be to reach an agreement with major browser makers to delete all local storage on ending a session and to minimize the amount of data that their products send to make fingerprinting more difficult in their default configuration. This would make tracking technically difficult instead of just trusting entities to not do it.

If by 'browser makers' you include the makers of Adobe Flash, Quicktime, Windows Media Player then you're onto something. Or some API that shunts all browser plugins' data use entirely and exclusively through a web browser.

Fortunately for us (i.e. consumers), there IS already a viable solution to this issue: www.3pmobile.com . This middleware applications allows USERS to determine WHO they share their meta data with, Privacy being one of the 3 Pillars of mobile user experience (The "3P's" are: Privacy, Performance & Personalization). Free to sign up and test...

The only thing that can come close to working is opt-in. Better still to combine that with a bounty system for sites that track you anyway. Award $100 per cookie, and things will get straightened up fast - we'll have hordes of computer savvy teenagers trying to make a living at it.

Any personal tracking should opt-in with options that specifically limit what can be done with the gathered information. In addition, it should be mandated that the experience or treatment a company provides its clients/visitors/etc. should not be degraded in any way because of a person's refusal to opt-in to any personal or unique ID based tracking.

Example, I might not need a "value card" to shop at a supermarket, but there is definitely a price penalty for not giving them that tracking mechanism, and many times a home address since they will only mail you the card.

Any personal tracking should opt-in with options that specifically limit what can be done with the gathered information. In addition, it should be mandated that the experience or treatment a company provides its clients/visitors/etc. should not be degraded in any way because of a person's refusal to opt-in to any personal or unique ID based tracking.

Example, I might not need a "value card" to shop at a supermarket, but there is definitely a price penalty for not giving them that tracking mechanism, and many times a home address since they will only mail you the card.

That effectively blocks companies from offering personalized experiences or suggestions based on gathered information to anyone. This would be a huge inconvenience. Netflix or Amazon suggestions for instance. If I couldn't get suggested movies relevant to my taste I would be pissed.

Just because someone wants to be paranoid that shouldn't screw the rest of us that see the value in giving up some information.

Any personal tracking should opt-in with options that specifically limit what can be done with the gathered information. In addition, it should be mandated that the experience or treatment a company provides its clients/visitors/etc. should not be degraded in any way because of a person's refusal to opt-in to any personal or unique ID based tracking./quote]

That effectively blocks companies from offering personalized experiences or suggestions based on gathered information to anyone. This would be a huge inconvenience. Netflix or Amazon suggestions for instance. If I couldn't get suggested movies relevant to my taste I would be pissed.

Just because someone wants to be paranoid that shouldn't screw the rest of us that see the value in giving up some information.

No, it doesn't block companies from *offering* personal experiences, and it doesn't "screw the rest of us".

If you really want to be tracked, and have your personal information broadcast via resold databases, just opt in. Your personal data will not be looted unless you consciously volunteer to allow it.

Most of us prefer to quietly conduct our private affairs without constantly watching for the next insidious subterfuge.

Any personal tracking should opt-in with options that specifically limit what can be done with the gathered information. In addition, it should be mandated that the experience or treatment a company provides its clients/visitors/etc. should not be degraded in any way because of a person's refusal to opt-in to any personal or unique ID based tracking./quote]

That effectively blocks companies from offering personalized experiences or suggestions based on gathered information to anyone. This would be a huge inconvenience. Netflix or Amazon suggestions for instance. If I couldn't get suggested movies relevant to my taste I would be pissed.

Just because someone wants to be paranoid that shouldn't screw the rest of us that see the value in giving up some information.

No, it doesn't block companies from *offering* personal experiences, and it doesn't "screw the rest of us".

If you really want to be tracked, and have your personal information broadcast via resold databases, just opt in. Your personal data will not be looted unless you consciously volunteer to allow it.

Most of us prefer to quietly conduct our private affairs without constantly watching for the next insidious subterfuge.

The person I replied to proposed not allowing degraded experiences for those who don't volunteer their information.

You're not going to provide suggestions to those who don't provide information couldn't that be considered a downgraded experience? Which would effectively ruin it for everyone.

Anybody surprised that the system being put in place is all show, no value? I mean, look at the track record of everything the government does and calls "security." Take for instance the TSA's constant parade of changes to the security measures against flyers. All show, no value. Shoe bomber comes, take off your shoes. Belt bomber comes, take off your belt. Terrorists use boxcutters, so no blades (duh?) or bottles of shampoo bigger than single serving (wut?). Naked terrorists are easier to spot than fully clothed terrorists, so scan EVERYONE. Or grope their junk. None of which will really stop a determined terrorist, but hey... it makes people feel better.

Remember when they taught people to duck 'n cover for a nuclear attack? Not going to help, but hey... got to do something. Pre-9/11, what did they teach people to do when a plane is hijacked? Do what the bad people say, stay down, duck 'n cover, and wait. Bird flu? "Stay indoors, stay away from the infected, don't die. Trust we have a plan." Anthrax? Scanning your mail now. Katrina? FEMA is coming. Just another day... feel okay, help is coming... just one more day...

The government has a habit of doing the cheapest thing possible to make people feel secure, even if that cheapest thing isn't actually making those people more secure in the slightest. The same will be true of this. To do otherwise would be to endanger the corporations' bottom line and when it comes to deciding between protecting the individuals' privacy or the corporations' bottom line, that's no choice at all.

The individuals don't pay the Super PAC's for these politicians. The corporations are the ones behind the anonymous PAC's that pay for Super Bowl commercials describing how Rick Perry wants to secure "The Border" by installing laser-mounted cacti, using the next generation in Reaper drones to turn the space between Texas and Mexico into a wasteland of weapons' fire and exploded human remains, and converting all the dead coyotes he's killed into cyborg hunter-killer coyotes with twin mounted chain guns and butt-mounted flame throwers. Or how Romney wants to build The Job Machine out of the collective processing power of every Touchpad in the United States and use WebOS to magically create jobs out of thin air.

Only the corporations can pay for these things. The individuals are the saps who watch the commercials, who do what the corporations say because when Election Day comes, all they can remember is laughing at a cyborg coyote with a flamethrower blowing fartfire at innocent people caught in the crossfire. Or its pleasant, "President Rick Perry extends a hearty thanks to you for not illegally crossing the United States/Mexico border. Please have a nice day and remember... come back now, y'hear?" after the burning remains of someone explode back across the border. They'll remember it was Perry that promised that future and they'll do just what the corporations who funded that commercial ("Not paid for or affiliated with the 'Rick Perry for President' campaign.") wished.

Expect the politicians to do only what their sugardaddies want and the sugardaddies want ads, tailor-fashioned with the private details of your life.

Giving the fox the keys to the hen house. Of course it's going to screw the people being tracked, and favor the advertisers. This is so bad it's comical.

An opt-in system? Never gonna happen. Everything you don't want online defaults to selected! Those options for "install our crappy toolbar," "Change search provider," "subscribe to our newsletter" - every single one of them is checked and you have to manually uncheck it. Some even hides it under "custom install."

with all the security breaches at the various large companies around that hold mass amounts of personal information - I'm surprised that hackers have not grabbed any tracking information yet (or at least it hasn't become public yet)

but when it does I can't wait for the large stream of lawsuits against these companies for storing private information in a public manner (the Internet) - I'm surprised that Sony and Visa and several of the banks that have been attacked have not gotten a flood of lawsuits already.

2 - just by clicking on that icon - you are auto-magically placed into yet another online database where who knows who is doing what with that info.....

which leads me back to point 1.

3 - if this icon has been out for a year now - where is it ? As a web dev I'm pretty much all over the place online and I have yet to see it.